She said: "Photo taken this morning on Oakhill Road in SE Salem. Can we start spending our community development money on sidewalks now, please?!"

When I saw the photo of a woman having to ride an electric wheelchair in the road, I thought This is terrible, Salem needs sidewalks everywhere so people can get around safely.

Just about everyone who left comments on the post felt the same way.

But notably, not ex-city councilor Daniel Benjamin, who was unanimously censured by the City Council last year following his Facebook sharing of a video showing Black Lives Matter protesters being rammed by cars, which led to his resignation.

Below I've shared some comment interchanges on the post between Benjamin, a conservative guy who was endorsed by the Salem Chamber of Commerce when he ran for the City Council in 2014, and liberal people who had a much more compassionate attitude toward the woman who was forced to ride her wheelchair in the street.

The back-and-forth comment conversation says a lot about the political landscape in Salem. This is a liberal-leaning town. I'm confident that most people reject the right-wing view that taxes should be as low as possible, even if they are needed to pay for vital public services. Like, sidewalks.

However, unfortunately the Chamber of Commerce'ish viewpoint expressed by Benjamin still has a lot of influence in Salem. An excessive amount of money and power still is in the hands of the aptly-named Powers That Be.

As you can read below, Benjamin believes that if someone lives in a part of town without sidewalks, and they need to get around in a wheelchair, the solution is simple: move to an area of Salem that does have sidewalks.

Selfish? Yes. Stupid? Yes.

Yet Benjamin isn't alone in favoring public policies that screw over the poor, and bestow even more wealth on the rich. That's the Republican playbook. And believe me, it isn't only guiding conservatives in Washington, D.C. Anyone who closely watches goings-on at the Salem City Hall, as I do, can see the attitude expressed by Benjamin -- need a sidewalk? tough, suck it up -- reflected in local public policy decisions.

Read on for the comment conversation. I highlighted some pertinent liberal views in green, and some of Benjamin's conservative views in red.

----------------------

Daniel BenjaminProbably shouldn't use it when on foot...or in this case... electric wheelchair.... I can't imagine what's so important that one would risk their life in that manner.

Mary Ann BaclawskiThis is the only way some people can get to the store for groceries and other necessities.

Evan ManvelI'd invite people like Mr. Eastwood who aren't familiar with the experience of not being able to drive places to tour the neighborhood via GoogleMaps satellite view.

(Or even better,spend a day in a wheelchair to understand how difficult it is to get around to meet one's basic needs).

From my brief look, it appears as if people can either:

(a) travel on Madrona and Commerical, busy streets with sidewalks but lots of cars turning across them, or

(b) travel on virtually any other road, without sidewalks. And to access option (a), people have to do (b) anyways.

We have a complete network for people who drive. We have very incomplete network for the 30% of Salemites who cannot.

Daniel BenjaminGood thing the last budget Community add more money to sidewalks Construction and repair.

Jennifer Hillman-MagnusonNow imagine you don't have a car, and you are not physically able. Some people have to risk their lives for mundane things like going to the store for food.

Chelsea Safe-Dogs EdwardsIt is at least 3 miles of no sidewalk and no bus routes before I can get to a bus stop or sidewalk to take me to a grocery store, pharmacy or other necessity.

I am disabled and often cannot walk at all, let alone 3+ miles in terribly unsafe conditions (River Rd S is a super fast thoroughfare) to meet just the basic needs of existing, like food and medicine, let alone doctor visits or quality of life.

In a Capital city this is primitive, archaic and a gross misuse of funds (we certainly do not need another mall or bridge before safe walkways and transportation routes).

Daniel BenjaminAlright I'm not trying to be mean here.... if your environment is so inhospitable perhaps you should change your environment... I agree more sidewalks are definitely needed as well as bus service.... however your needs aren't the only ones that need to be met and regards the sidewalks...

Chelsea Safe-Dogs EdwardsSo it's my fault because I don't just up and move along to a much more upscale neighborhood that has these basics of urban dwelling, I see.

Thank you so much for your wise observations, I will take note and apply that nonsense at first opportunity.

Daniel BenjaminIt's what I what do.... if I want better schools I moved the neighborhood with the better schools or want better access to I-5 I move somewhere that has better access to I-5... I need to be close to the goods and services or even a hospital.... that's just common sense lady... or you can call it nonsense whatever.

Chelsea Safe-Dogs EdwardsMay you always be able bodied, resource rich and never have to make any hard choices that pit one basic need against another.May you never have to experience these kinds of obstacles or understand the consequences of things beyond your control. May you always feel justified in hiding behind societal acceptance of hate and discrimination (if one has to preface a statement with "Alright I'm not trying to be mean here" perhaps it is pertinent to rethink the statement period). May you never have to walk a step in the shoes of your fellow citizens that may not possess your resources, abilities or social privilege.

The oversimplification of the struggles within our society is void of compassion, observation and reality. The strategies you employ my internet stranger-friend are a failed attempt at distracting from the reality that the City of Salem and the County of Marion have not done their jobs in providing for all of it's citizens, even the most basic of needs, as this photo presents a compelling case for.

I am finished engaging you, for there is no benefit to what you have to offer, it is only masked xenophobia and hate, neither of which do I choose to feed. Good day to you. May it be blessed with diversity and sidewalks.

Daniel BenjaminMay I help you move?....how is that that for "intolerant" "hate" and "discrimination?"

...Susann KaltwasserJennifer Hillman-Magnuson True! I havea friend who must used a motorized wheelchair as their main transportation. Every time she goes to the grocery store, she almost get hit by some car that either has not patience or doesn't yield the right of way...even in a crosswalk with a light, she is at risk. This is shameful!

Susann KaltwasserDaniel Benjamin If you can find them a place, pay their application fee, their deposit and first and last month's rent, then that might be a reasonable offer.

...Susan Elizabeth-Marsh TanabeRegular bus transportation and sidewalks... these should be as basic and required as water lines and electricity. And yes, I know that means more taxes. As much as I'd feel the pain, it know it is worth it.

Daniel BenjaminChelsea Safe-Dogs Edwards...take a look at the City Budget from just last year...then look at it from 5 years ago...all you would have to look at is how much the city spends on sidewalks.... then comment back what you found.

Daniel BenjaminAs my drill sergeant used to say.."I can't hear you!"Funny how folks say the government needs to spend more wisely so their particular need or cause can get more funding...and you point out the government budget...then they get quite. I want better streets so I can drive my car with safety and assurance... but somehow now I'm supposed to sacrifice my safety and assurance so other people can have sidewalks... I propose we have a sidewalk tax... that way you can increase the amount of sidewalks that are installed and maintained...any takers?

Chelsea Safe-Dogs Edwards I stopped engaging you a while back. It has nothing to do with disagreement on any given topic. It has to do with managing my time in far more productive and successful ways. Arguing with strangers on the internet is not one of my strategies. Sorry, you will have to find someone else to hawk your opinions at. My best advice to you is this: Just. Stop.

Daniel Benjamin Lol... I offer Solutions and you call me Petty... typical leftist... good luck to you I hope you get your sidewalks

November 09, 2016

It's always tough to say why an election result turns out the way it did, especially at the local level where we don't have exit polls.

But here's an initial attempt to get into the minds of Salem voters who rejected Measure 24-399 by 52% to 48% in yesterday's election -- combining that opining with insight into a mind I'm much better acquainted with: my own.

Here's a couple of reasons why I'm optimistic about the defeat of the $82 million police facility bond measure that I led the fight against via Salem Can Do Better.

The defeat shows the downside of top-down governmental planning.As the Salem Can Do Better web page says, one reason to vote against the bond measure was "lack of public involvement in the police facility planning process from start to finish." I cited some documentation.

There was basically no opportunity for citizens to be involved with planning for a new police facility, or to weigh in on the pluses and minuses of locating this facility in a brand new building at the Civic Center. Even City Council members complained they were kept in the dark about this project.

The most important decision made by the Salem City Council during the six year reign of Mayor Anna Peterson was made on June 8 at a special public hearing with most of the citizenry unaware of what was going on... The $82 million full meal deal has had almost no public engagement. It comes from the top down.

Citizens don't like it when City of Salem officials view "public outreach" as asking people to accept what's being offered without questions. This attitude needs to be dumped at City Hall.

Hopefully the Mayor, City Manager, and city councilors now will fully involve the public in a Plan B public safety proposal that costs less and includes the vital seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library that used to be part of the police facility project until the building doubled in size and cost after Chicago consultants were hired.

The DLR Group now needs to be fired and replaced by a local Oregon architectural firm with a better understanding of what this town needs and is willing to pay for.

The defeat reflects the rise of people-power over money-power.As a Statesman Journal story points out, those advocating a "yes" vote on Measure 24-399 via a Keep Salem Safe PAC vastly outspent Salem Can Do Better.

The grassroots organization raised just under $2,000, mostly from Hines himself, former mayoral candidate Carole Smith and Salem Community Vision Steering Committee member Jim Scheppke.

...In contrast, the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce-backed Keep Salem Safe PAC garnered more than $100,000 in contributions. Big donors like Mountain West Investment Corporation, Salem Health and the DLR Group donated tens of thousands of dollars.

Yet we prevailed, even with a 50:1 handicap in money available to us. We had to rely on buying some voter's pamphlet arguments, getting free press, and making use of social media (mostly Facebook).

Keep Salem Safe had lots of big name endorsements, lawn signs, a direct mailing to Salem households, a Statesman Journal editorial urging a "yes" vote on Measure 24-399, Chamber of Commerce backing -- everything that traditionally led to a political win in this town.

Except this time it didn't.

The times are a'changing. People are a lot more skeptical of the Power Structure, whether at the national, state, or local level. Their votes aren't a given anymore if certain political buttons are pushed

On the whole, this is a good thing. In a democracy people-power should outweigh money-power. Let's have more of it in Salem.

Along that line, here's a photo someone sent me of the Keep Salem Safe election night party buffet table at the Illahe Country Club. Reportedly lobster canapés were served to donors and supporters.

By contrast, here's a day-after reenactment of the Salem Can Do Better election night festivities. I spent the evening at home obsessively watching presidential election news on MSNBC and CNN, with checking of Marion County results on my laptop after 8 pm.

I served wine and bagged popcorn to myself, sharing some with our non-political dog, ZuZu. (Popcorn, no wine.)

June 15, 2016

The flip side of NO is YES. Saying No to one thing often is the prelude to saying Yes to a better thing.

So I'm proud to be a naysayer to plans for an $83 million police facility here in Salem, because rejecting a bond for this over-sized and over-priced Police Palace in the November 2016 election will open a YES door to a better approach -- one that meets the needs of the Police Department plus other needs that currently are being ignored by City officials.

Here's what I mean:

Cost is too high. Salem can do better... because not only is the proposed 148,000 square foot police facility considerably larger than what this town needs, the construction cost per square foot is much higher than what other police facilities have been built for recently.

This chart is part of a Salem Community Vision post. It shows that the $562/square foot construction cost of the proposed Salem police facility is more than double the square foot cost of facilities built by the State Police and the Eugene Police Department.

New 911 Center not necessary. Salem can do better... because it isn't necessary to include a new $11 million 911 Center in the proposed $83 million police facility. City officials have been told that the current 911 Center (the Willamette Valley Communications Center, WVCC) is fine where it is in leased space for at least another ten years.

Also, why should Salem taxpayers pay the full $11 million bill for constructing a new 911 Center when the WVCC is a regional center for twenty-nine police, fire, and medical agencies in Lincoln, Marion, and Polk counties? If and when a new 911 Center is needed, the construction cost should be shared by all of the agencies.

Earthquake preparedness being ignored. Salem can do better... because the supersized $83 million, 148,000 square foot police facility has squeezed out funds for making critical life-saving seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall.

Until a few years ago, seismic upgrades to the Civic Center were part of a Public Safety project that included money for a new $36 million, 75,000 square foot police facility. But then the police facility doubled in size and cost after some Chicago consultants came to town.

So now plans have been shelved to save lives at City Hall and the Library when (not if) the Big One Cascadia subduction zone earthquake hits, even though a main reason for a new police facility is because City Hall is expected to collapse in the Big One, and the Police Department currently is on the ground floor of the building.

Our town has many other needs. Salem can do better... because wasting tens of millions of dollars on an over-priced Police Palace means this money can't be used to meet other needs.

Imagine what $10 million, say, could accomplish if it was used to combat homelessness, or make cycling and walking safer in Salem? In May 2015 I wrote about how Portland's much-admired Neighborhood Greenway streets cost about $250,000 a mile to build. Thus Salem could have 40 miles of bicycle/pedestrian-friendly streets for $10 million.

It should be possible to (1) build a perfectly adequate new police facility, (2) make the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe, and (3) save at least $10 million to spend on other needs in Salem for the current price tag of $83 million -- which only pays for a police facility.

There will be lots of debate and discussion about the proposed $83 million police facility bond between now and the November election.

Here I wanted to explain in general why I'll be urging citizens to vote NO -- so people in Salem can have a better YES after the over-priced bond is defeated and a more sensible revised plan is adopted.

June 14, 2016

After so many tragic mass shootings in this country, I've got no patience left with the "thoughts and prayers" crowd -- unless their thoughts and prayers are accompanied by a strong call for action. This is why I found a recent Statesman Journal editorial so irritating.

Only in America do we have this much gun violence. Why? Because we have way more guns per capita than any other nation. So we have way more gun deaths.

Responsible gun control is the answer.

Thoughts and prayers are useless. They accomplish nothing (if a person directly affected by a shooting is told you are personally thinking of them, then they might feel a little bit better, but this rarely happens).

So, please Americans, stop with the thoughts and prayers.

All these rote expressions of sympathy accomplish is relieve your guilt that you're not doing anything to stop the needless gun violence.

Instead, ACT!

Support those calling for universal background checks and other reasonable gun control measures. Refuse to vote for politicians who mindlessly do the bidding of the NRA. Put pressure on federal, state, and local officials to prevent more mass shootings.

It's fine to feel for the victims. But if this is all we do, feel, we're being uncaring, not compassionate. One direct action to stop gun violence is better than a thousand thoughts and prayers.

So it was frustrating to read Dick Hughes' editorial in the Salem Statesman Journal about the Orlando mass shooting -- the worst in the history of the United States -- and find a lot of thoughts, but a zero call for action beyond vague platitudes like these (emphasis added by me):

This is a day for rational people to stand strong — shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm, hand in hand — with people whose sexual orientation or religious practices or world view differ from our own.

This is a day to remember that America was founded on the ideals of political freedom and religious tolerance, by people who rejected the state-enforced religion of their British master. It is a day to remember that throughout our history, America has been seen as the great melting pot of civilization, where people of different heritages and different beliefs and different skin colors can live together and promote the good of all.

Wow. Stand strong and remember. That'll do a lot to stop the next mass shooting. (NOT!)

After I went to our paper box, got that day's Statesman Journal, and read Hughes' exceedingly toothless editorial, I sat down at my laptop and expressed my frustration in a comment on the online opinion piece.

This editorial gets the problem wrong. "Rational" was mentioned many times. But more rationality isn't going to stop mass shootings. The gunman, Omar Mateen, almost certainly wasn't mentally ill. He just believed in some weird stuff, like Donald Trump does, like a majority of Republican primary voters do, like WE ALL do.

Yes, religions are the source of much of the weird stuff people believe. Many Muslims and Christians share a mistaken belief that homosexuality is forbidden by God (who somehow also creates gays and lesbians). But we're not going to be able to do away with religions, no mattter how good this would be for the world.

Modern psychology and neursoscience understand that emotion, not reason, is the foundation of most of our actions. We FEEL that something is right, then we find reasons to support that feeling. Science, by and large, is our best way to use facts and reason to understand the world.

But scientific understanding isn't going to stop mass shootings. As I said in a blog post last night, it's obvious that the problem isn't people, it is guns. The United States doesn't have more people with weird beliefs; it has way more guns. That's why our nation's gun death rate is so far above that of other countries.

Universal background checks is one thing that could be done to prevent people from getting guns who shouldn't have them. Banning assault-style weapons is another good idea. See:

This editorial failed to say anything about what concrete, realistic steps should be take to reduce the number of mass shootings. Big omission. It just talks about the usual useless "thoughts-and-prayers," "be kind to each other" stuff that has done, and will do, exactly NOTHING to stop innocent people from being killed by shooters.

Let's see another Statesman Journal editorial with specific recommendations to stop mass shootings. Only then will I believe that the SJ editorial board really wants to do something about this.

As noted in my comment and the linked blog post about the Orlando killings, here's four things that I think would help to stop the endless string of mass shootings in this country:

(1) Elect Hillary Clinton as the next president, so she has a chance to appoint Supreme Court justices who will revisit the horrible 2008 Court decision to overturn the previous long-held legal position that allowed reasonable regulations on the individual "right to bear arms."

So what are your recommended actions to help stop mass shootings, Dick Hughes and the rest of the Statesman Journal editorial board?

Do you have any specific realistic actions? Or are you guys content with "thoughts and prayers" -- which so far has done nothing to stop people from being killed in mass shootings?

[Update: I just came across a New York Times piece that supports what I said in this post. "Why Do Terrorists Commit Terrorism?" concludes that it really isn't possible to know why someone does something (applies to everybody, not just terrorists). Instead, the focus should be on what they want to do. Like, commit a mass shooting.

Stopping them from doing the what doesn't require knowing the why behind the what. Yet the Statesman Journal editorial wrongly said:

But we also know that the number of mass shootings has increased in the U.S. And to stop such actions, we must understand what drives them.

No, we don't need to understand the why of what drives them. We simply need to stop the actions undertaken in a mass shooting: one of which is buying guns and using them to kill people.]

June 09, 2016

Last night the Salem City Council decided to press on with an unwise $83 million plan for an over-priced and over-sized new police facility.

Sadly, this means making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe likely won't happen for many years, if ever.

Reason: the hugely costly police facility proposal, which has doubled in cost and square footage from $36 million/75,000 sq. ft. to $83 million/148,000 sq. ft., has squeezed out the money that previously was going to be spent on seismically retrofitting the Civic Center so lives aren't lost when, not if, the Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits (could be any time, according to geologists).

Mayor Anna Peterson also requested a study of the seismic safety of the civic center and library to be undertaken and completed by the end of 2016 to ensure the safety and security of city staff and visitors. The motion also passed unanimously.

So for the past five years, the Mayor and city councilors have sat on their butts and done nothing to save the lives of the people who work at, and visit, City Hall and the Library. Yet now we're supposed to believe that a new study is going to lead to immediate action.

Yeah, right.

I testified at last night's City Council meeting, spending my allotted three minutes urging City officials to make seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library a top priority now. City staff have said that the cost would be approximately $26.6 million.

Maybe that cost estimate needs updating. Maybe not. If it does, that could have been done months ago. Instead, Mayor Peterson admitted at a June 1 City Council work session that the focus has been solely on finalizing plans for the newly supersized $83 million Police Palace.

So I am deeply skeptical that the Mayor's motion to do another study of seismic conditions at the City Hall and Library is anything more than a thinly veiled attempt to assuage the concerns of citizens who are wondering, "What the hell happened to the money for making the Civic Center earthquake-safe, which previously was going to be part of a Public Safety bond that included funds for a new police facility?"

Last night I talked about this in my testimony.

And here's my video, which I mentioned in my testimony, that provides more detail about the shameful failure of the Mayor and City Councilors to protect the lives of people who work at and visit City Hall and the Library.

Only a week ago, at a June 1 City Council work session on the police facility, Councilor Tom Andersen asked why updated cost estimates for making seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall hadn't been requested in February -- since now he's been told that it would take two or three months to get those estimates.

Mayor Peterson took Andersen to task, saying that City staff hadn't been authorized by the City Council to work on seismic upgrades to the Civic Center. So it was strange to see Peterson making a motion at the June 8 meeting to get estimates for what it would cost to seismically retrofit buildings owned by the City of Salem -- including the Library and City Hall.

I can't be sure what Peterson's motivation was for doing this. However, her newfound interest in making the Civic Center earthquake-safe came at the very last moment in the planning for a supersized $83 million, 148,000 square foot police facility.

So I strongly suspect that the motion approved by the City Council, which calls for the cost estimates to be prepared by the end of 2016, is viewed as a way to tamp down criticism that it makes no sense to get Police Department staff out of the ground floor of City Hall so they aren't crushed to death when the Big One earthquake hits, while leaving other City employees vulnerable to the same "pancaking" of the seismically deficient building.

Well, this isn't going to work for one critic, moi.

There's good reason to believe that the only way City Hall and the Library are going to get urgently needed seismic upgrades is if voters defeat the police facility bond measure that will be on the November, 2016 ballot. If the measure fails, City officials and the City Council will have to reduce the cost and size of the current over-priced $83 million plan.

This will allow Civic Center seismic upgrades to become part of a revamped Public Safety bond measure. So for the same cost, or even less, citizens will get a much more appealing deal: a perfectly adequate new police facility, plus seismic retrofitting of the Library and City Hall.

Below is a video I made of a portion of yesterday's meeting that supports my contention that defeating the police facility bond measure is the best way to ensure that lives are saved when the Big One earthquake hits.

As background, the current property tax rate for paying off City of Salem bonds is $1.01 per $1,000 assessed valuation. City staff are recommending that this rate be raised to $1.25 per $1,000, which is about a 25% increase. This would allow bonds already issued, plus a police facility bond and a planned "streets and bridges" bond, to be paid off over 20 years.

But that's it. Lewis says, "that would be what we could do for 20 years."

Meaning, no bond for seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library could be issued, unless the property tax rate was raised above $1.25 per $1,000 assessed valuation. Thus the Mayor and City Council are planning to raise taxes by 25% in order to pay for their over-priced Police Palace, then close the door on other bond measures for Salem needs (other than streets and bridges) unless City taxes are raised substantially again.

Is the 2017 City Council going to ask citizens to approve another Public Safety bond measure for seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library if the police facility bond passes? Very doubtful. This is why money for the seismic upgrades should have been part of the Public Safety bond being presented to voters this November.

Which was the original plan by City officials, until the size and cost of the police facility doubled, squeezing out money for seismically retrofitting the Civic Center.

So voting NO this November is the best way to say YES to saving lives.

April 19, 2016

Dedicated observer that I am of our "public servants" at the City of Salem, I eschewed staying in the sun this gorgeous afternoon and ventured into Room 220 at City Hall, where the Mayor and City Manager oversee their kingdom.

Topic of the day for a City Council Police Facility subcommitee: an update on police facility planning efforts.

This time Mayor Peterson seemed to be keeping track of what was going on.

At the previous meeting Peterson presided over the goings-on for about three hours before coming to the realization that I and seemingly everybody else in the room found obvious: that the entire discussion at the work session to that point had been about a downsized 125,000 square foot police facility rather than the original 148,000 square foot plan.

Today City Manager Steve Powers said that consultants and staff are working on a revised site plan and cost estimate for the 148,000 square foot, $81 million option that excludes the Mill Creek Medical Plaza building adjacent to the O'Brien site north of downtown -- the chosen location for a new police facility.

The alternative 125,000 square foot, $70 million option leaves out the regional 911 Center (Willamette Valley Communications Center). It's pretty clear that the Mayor and some city councilors still have the hots for including a much larger 911 Center in the new police facility.

However, Powers made some statements about an upcoming staff report on the 911 Center that showed the "build new" option is going to come out looking economically bad compared to the "continue to lease space" option.

"The cost-benefit analysis of building may not be compelling," Powers said judiciously. But he added that qualitative considerations (like, Police Chief Moore wants the regional 911 Center in a new police facility) could alter the economic equation.

Looking at the meeting agenda, I noticed that Councilor Warren Bednarz is no longer on the committee. Maybe this had something to do with Bednarz voting to consider a potential location for the police facility -- the block south of the Library -- without announcing a conflict of interest, because his family owns property on that block.

Mayor Anna Peterson, along with City Councilors Steve McCoid, Diana Dickey, and Chuck Bennett are the four remaining members of the Police Facility Subcommittee. McCoid was the only councilor in attendance.

I was sorry that Chuck Bennett wasn't there after I heard City Manager Powers report on progress in getting cost estimates for making the Civic Center earthquake-safe.

Bennett is running for Mayor against Carole Smith. Repeatedly he has claimed that no reliable cost estimates exist for seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library -- a falsity that I gave him a WTF! for after hearing him say this at a Salem City Club debate between him and Smith.

Today Powers said that three studies have been made since 2005 of what it would cost to make seismic upgrades to the Civic Center so lives will be saved when, not if, the next Really Big One subduction zone earthquake hits the northwest.

One study was for the entire Civic Center; one was for City Hall; and the most recent was for the Library and associated parking structure. Bennett has been saying that the seismic cost estimates were made by some out-of-town guy walking around and coming up with a number.

Well, Powers said that this guy is the same professional estimator who is coming up with cost estimates for the new police facility. So Chuck Bennett hasn't been telling the truth about the reliability of seismic retrofitting cost figures for the Civic Center.

Architect Geoff James, a fellow Salem Community Vision steering committee member, also attended today's meeting. You can check out his report here. Geoff laid out the timeline discussed by the council subcommitee:

HERE IS THE SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS (for the calendar)

May 11: Council receive cost estimate packets.

Wednesday June 1 Work Session (assumed to be at 5.30 p.m.)

Monday, June 13: City Council: Public Hearing on Police Facility. Also on City Budget.

Monday, June 27: City Council makes decision on the Bond Measure (in November).

April 13, 2016

Looks like John Lattimer, the Chief Administrative Officer for Marion County, has been caught in a lie -- along with some members of the Salem City Council, who have been spreading the same falsehoods.

The community has a great example of what happens when buildings are re-designed to reduce costs. The Courthouse Square and Transit Mall is a perfect example of attempts to cut costs. There was a great amount of political heat on the decision makers at the time to reduce costs. Eventually, both the building and transit mall had to be re-engineered at great cost.

The Salem City Council should not make the same mistake.

I don't know whether Lattimer intentionally misrepresented the cause of the problems with Courthouse Square in downtown Salem to justify wasting money on an oversized and overpriced new police facility, or if he is just clueless about why Courthouse Square (built by Marion County and the Cherriots Transit Board) had to undergo extensive repairs after being built.

Here's what really happened with Courthouse Square. The building's problems weren't caused by cost-cutting. They were caused by mismanagement and poor construction practices.

Before sharing what architect Geoffrey James, who chaired a Courthouse Square Task Force repair committee, has to say about Lattimer's letter, here's what Susan Kaltwasser said in a Facebook post. (I've corrected a few typos in both her post and James' messages):

John Lattimer should be ashamed of himself as Marion County CAO to so misrepresent what happened at the Courthouse Square! There are public records that clearly show that the problem was not due to cutting corners on the budget, BUT rather lack of oversight by the county and errors made by the construction contractors and engineers.

This is not opinion as Lattimer is giving, but fact based upon impartial investigation and court documents. This engineer made more mistakes in buildings in Salem projects (Salem Hospital parking structure).

The City Council is negligent in not questioning the consultants thus far and stating that they will trust the experts. Well experts can be wrong. Oversight is what is needed, NOT more money.

This lie is being promoted by those who want to fool the Salem public into thinking more money means a better building. They think that an expensive PR firm can "sell" the project to the voters. I hope that the voters will see through this.

I also hope that the voters throw these current politicians who are making these wrong and costly mistakes out in May. We need people who think for themselves and read the staff reports and vote on what is right for citizens and not just what lines theirs and other builder friends' pockets with taxpayers' hard earned money.

We need a police station. We can have a large, adequate and well built facility for $30 million. We do not need another expensive parking structure when one is just a block away.

And here's what Geoffrey James said in an online comment on Lattimer's letter to the editor:

The writer is incorrect. I served on both the Courthouse Square Task Force (and chaired a committee) and on the Blue Ribbon Police Facility Task Force.

My work on Courthouse Square started in 1986 with early site studies and conceptual design, for County and Transit. The building was constructed for $34M in 2000, with a perfectly adequate budget, i.e. certainly not built on the cheap.

The facts are that both the Salem Hospital Parking Garage and the Courthouse Square were designed by the same structural engineer, who made some serious design mistakes in the post-stressed flat slab concrete structure design and calculations, of both buildings.

Salem Health decided to fix their building. Marion County (the letter writer is county administrator) decided not to, because they insisted on staying on time and budget, i.e. no change orders. So that meant that I (as committee chair for the fix) had to spend hundreds of volunteer hours (10 years later) finding a way to repair the building for $20M, versus the $65M the Portland consultants had estimated.

Local volunteers were proven right. The expensive out-of-town consultants were proven wrong (by $40M) and the taxpayers won. Sounds familiar?

Chicago consultants recommend a $82M Police Facility, when we know that Eugene's new one was $17M. The bottom line is that Courthouse Square had an adequate budget of $34M. It was the engineering consultant, and the city's lack of an engineer reviewing the plans, that led to the $22.8M problem that we (locals) devised a fix for.

It would have cost a fraction of that if the county administrator had recommended a $3M? fix during construction. Beware of out-of-town consultants and their big cost estimates, and watch out for consultants' mistakes. Quality control (by city or county) is needed, not excessive budgets.

This fits with the "How did things go so wrong?" section of a blog post from the law firm that handled a legal battle about the Courthouse Square structural defects. Excerpts:

In their report, Golder found serious problems with the building's structural design, writing that it was inadequate; lacked sufficient detail and clarity; and was never subjected to peer-review before or during construction. Design revisions made during construction were also cited in the report as worsening the building's already-flawed structural design.

The report also blamed management and supervision errors for the poor construction practices which led to the building's structural and other defects...

The lack of experience in managing and overseeing construction projects similar in size and scope to the Courthouse Square project among County and Transit officials, the architect and the primary contractor were also cited in the report as contributing to the flawed construction.

Finally, the forensic engineering report, citing data from concrete strength tests it conducted during its investigation, concluded that the building's concrete elements were too weak.

Lastly, I asked Geoffrey James to respond to Lattimer's claim that cost-cutting was the cause of Courthouse Square's construction problems. Here's the message that he emailed back to me. It provides more detail than James' online comment.

There were two subjects Bennett talked about that elicited a WTF! reaction from me: (1) a proposed multi-use bike path in West Salem, Salemtowne to Downtown, and (2) making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe.

Nothing Smith said seemed worthy of a WTF!

And this isn't because I resonate much more closely with Smith's political point of view, than with Bennett's. I just didn't hear any factual misstatements come out of Smith's mouth -- which is my definition of that's bullshit.

We're all going to have different political opinions. But we should do our best to agree on the relevant facts those opinions should be based on. So here's where I found Bennett lacking, fact-wise.

(1) On his support for a Marine Drive Bike Trail, a.k.a. Salemtowne to Downtown.

So far Wigg has been unable to get support from Bennett for buying the Marine Drive right-of-way, as was called for in the Streets and Bridges Bond. Volunteers would build the Bike Trail if the City of Salem acquires the right-of-way.

Mark Wigg attended the City Club debate. After it was over, I talked with him.

Wigg confirmed to me that yes, the City has the bond fund money to buy the right-of way; yes, Bennett is on the committee that oversees how that money is spent; and yes, Bennett hasn't done anything to move the Marine Drive Bike Trail forward.

So if Chuck Bennett really wants a Salemtowne to Downtown multi-use path, he hasn't shown any actual commitment to this, just empty words. That's why I give him a WTF! on his statement that he'd like to see the path built.

(2) On his statement that there is no cost estimate to make the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe.

Bike paths are important. Saving lives when the Really Big One earthquake hits is really important.

Public officials shouldn't talk crap when it comes to keeping people safe at the Library and City Hall when, not if, the next Cascadia subduction zone earthquake strikes the northwest with what will be the worst natural disaster in the history of North America.

One reason planning for a new Salem police facility was undertaken is because City Hall almost certainly will collapse in a large earthquake. So back in 2013 City officials proposed building a new police facility (currently the Police Department is on the ground floor of City Hall), and making the Civic Center earthquake-safe.

At the City Club debate, Chuck Bennett said these are separate issues -- the police facility and seismic upgrades.

Well, actually they aren't, because if it is important to save the lives of Police Department staff by getting them into an earthquake-safe building, it sure seems equally important to save the lives of everybody at City Hall and the Library when a mega-earthquake hits.

Bennett also said that there is no cost estimate for seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library, apparently in an attempt to justify leaving them out of a police facility/seismic upgrades Public Safety Bond that could be presented to voters in November 2016.

(This was the original plan of City officials until the size and cost of the police facility doubled.)

Bennett added, rather confusingly, that a cost estimate for seismic upgrades does exist, but he dismissed the validity of the estimate by saying it was done by some guy from out-0f-town who just walked through the buildings (not an exact quote; I'm going by my scribbled notes).

Well, on behalf of Salem Community Vision, I wrote the group's position paper on a new police facility and seismic upgrades to the Civic Center buildings. In doing background research for the position paper, some Googling turned up two reports prepared by consultants hired by the City of Salem.

These certainly were a heck of a lot more extensive than Bennett's remarks to the City Club audience implied. Take a look:

Here's how I briefly described the reports in the Salem Community Vision position paper:

In the original City of Salem 75,000 square foot police facility proposal, seismic upgrades to City Hall were included.

A 2011 estimate by engineering consultants put the cost at about $5,250,000 (including “soft” costs). In 2014 the cost of making seismic upgrades to the Library, Auditorium, and parking structure was calculated: about $10,000,000, assuming the same 70% ﬁgure for costs other than actual construction (design, contingencies,etc.).

So Chuck Bennett spoke falsely.

There are indeed well-researched cost estimates for making essential seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library (including Loucks Auditorium and the Library parking structure). In addition, a recent City of Salem staff report about police facility planning progress said:

At the February 29, 2016 public hearing, Council discussed whether potential savings from the Police Facility project could be used to fund some seismic strengthening of the buildings on the Civic Center campus.

The revised cost estimates for the Police Facility project show a contingency of 9% on the project or $5.44 million. It is unlikely that the project will be completed with adequate savings to make a measurable impact on the seismic strengthening need of Civic Center buildings, which is currently estimated at approximately $26.6 million (in 2016 dollars).

Sure sounds like a cost estimate to me: $26.6 million.

If Bennett opposes making the Civic Center earthquake-safe, he should simply say so. Then voters can take this into account when deciding whether to vote for him or Carole Smith to be Salem's next Mayor.

(Parents of children who visit the Library's StoryTime should really take this into account.)

But please, Councilor Bennett, don't say stuff that isn't true. There are indeed solid cost estimates for making seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library. Salem Community Vision has also pointed this out in a Facebook post that criticizes Bennett on this issue.

It starts out with:

WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING FOR MAYOR YOU SHOULD RECALL CITY HALL & LIBRARY SEISMIC RETROFIT ENGINEERING REPORTS AND COST ESTIMATES

The Councilor for Ward 1 [Chuck Bennett] is running for Mayor, but obviously does not pay attention, or do his homework.

April 04, 2016

Bad timing. The Salem City Council scheduled tonight's 6:30 pm work session on the new police facility at the same time as the Final Four Championship game between Villanova and North Carolina.

Since I want to attend the work session to see what new political craziness the folks at City Hall will unleash on unsuspecting citizens, and also want to come home ASAP after the work session and immerse myself in my recorded finale of March Madness, I figured I'd write most of a blog post report on the work session beforehand.

That way I can sit at the meeting, laptop in my lap, and type in red-tinged answers to the questions below -- the most important topics Salem's Mayor and city councilors should address regarding the size and cost of a new police facility, and making seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library to save lives when the Really Big One earthquake hits.

--------------------------------Next day "bottom line" update: As you can read in red below, I left the City Council meeting at 10 pm, worried that my head was going to explode after sitting through 3 1/2 hours of meandering unproductive discussion that, pretty clearly, was going nowhere. This morning I watched the CCTV video meeting to see what I missed at the very end of the meeting.

(Aside from the freaking great Final Four championship match between Villanova and North Carolina, which I watched a recording of when I got home -- by far the best part of my evening.)

At the time I left, Councilor Andersen had made a motion to settle on the smaller-sized 125,000 square foot police facility plan that leaves out a new 911 center and saves about $11 million. As almost always happens with Andersen motions (he's the most progressive member of the right-wing council), a substitute motion was quickly made.

That motion was the one that passed. It basically leaves everything the same, asking the consultants to come back with a revised cost and layout plan for the original 148,000 square foot police facility on a smaller site -- since a decision has been made to save the dental clinic on the north end of the O'Brien property.

So like I surmised, nothing was really accomplished last night.

The Mayor and City Council haven't settled on a size for the police facility. They haven't determined whether seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall should be part of a public safety bond. They aren't sure whether a 911 call center should be part of the new police facility. And they never got around to discussing the polling/survey data that was supposed to be part of the meeting agenda.--------------------------------

March 29, 2016

Gosh, maybe this is too radical an idea for Salem's Mayor and City Council, but it sure seems like a "Public Safety" bond voters will be asked to approve in the November election should actually keep the public safe -- rather than being a massive waste of taxpayer money to build an overpriced Police Palace.

A few years ago our sometimes-wise City officials recognized a scary truth: City Hall and the Library are almost surely going to collapse when the next massive Cascadia subduction zone earthquake, a.k.a. the Big One, strikes.

Children at the Library's Storytime would be crushed under tons of rubble. City staff who should be available to help Salem recover from what will be the biggest disaster in the history of North America will be dead or seriously injured.

Linda Norris, the City Manager at the time, said this about City Hall in a 2013 Statesman Journal story:

"The way it is, right now, city employees wouldn't even be able to get out of the building alive, much less use the building.”

As reported by Salem Community Vision in a must-read position paper, "Salem's New Police Facility: The Best Way to Achieve It," in 2013 City officials were all set to spend about $20 million on essential seismic upgrades to City Hall (and probably also the Library) as part of an $80 million Public Safety bond that included about $60 million for a new 75,000 square foot police facility with underground parking on the Civic Center campus.

But community resistance to this plan led to some Chicago consultants being hired. Unfortunately, their supersized plan doubled the size of the police facility to 150,000 square feet, so $80 million would only pay for it alone.

So now the previous plan to make City Hall and the Library earthquake-ready to save lives has been sacrificed in order to construct empty space in a supersized police facility that might possibly be needed 30 years from now by the Police Department -- though this is by no means certain, as hardly anything in life is.

What is certain is this: the Big One earthquake is a matter of when, not if.

Yet currently the only "plan" (using that word loosely) City officials have to fund seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library is to use fantasized cost savings from a $80 million police facility bond to pay for them.

Yeah, right.

The dream of Mayor Peterson and some equally clueless city councilors is that a competitive bidding process to construct an $80 million police facility will result in a 25% cost under-run that magically leaves $20 million to be spent on making the Civic Center earthquake-ready.

Over on my other blog I've ranted about the craziness of not making the seismic upgrades:

With the changes, Bohman said, “City Hall is becoming safer, greener, more welcoming and a better long-term investment for the community as a result of this extra time and work.”

An apparent driver of the anticipated cost increase is the work to strengthen the building to a standard reserved for buildings deemed essential in an emergency, including fire and police stations and hospitals, so they are immediately operable after a major earthquake or other disaster.

...Richard Rogers, the state’s chief building official, said such a building should ride out a major earthquake with only minimal damage, but it may need minor repairs before it can be operable again.

“It’s not falling down,” he said. “There should be no loss of life.”

Yet here in Salem, City officials are even balking at retrofitting City Hall and the Library to a lesser earthquake standard, "Life and Safety," while Eugene is heading toward building a City Hall to an "Immediate Occupancy" standard.

This is shameful. Lives are at stake.

Yet Salem's Mayor and City Council appear to be willing to let children and other visitors to the Civic Center die so a Police Palace can be built that is twice the size of the police facility City officials said was just fine a few years ago.

They're having a work session next Monday, April 4, to discuss plans for the new police facility. Tell them they have to restore money in a Public Safety bond for making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe.

Otherwise voters should make sure in November that this bond is as dead as the people who will die at the Civic Center if the seismic upgrades don't happen.